Regrettably, it's a Gelf Gallop

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Originally Posted by Goldenmane

Well, this was a bit of a cock up.

I'll say... all I've seen here is something about "paedophilia", "rape", "sexual abuse" and it appears that some people see those words and get in such a huff that they ignore the fact that they are either simply allegations or that they are lies.

It would appear that, if one has a grudge against someone, just accuse him/her of being a rapist or paedophile. This thread is evidence that people will just believe it, with or without any evidence relevant to the claims being made.

[GenericBox]

I think it's insulting to Sweden to suggest that their legal system is somehow inferior to ours, or the British - or that they would "bow" to US extradition when there is no evidence they would (even to the contrary with Swedish lawyers adamant that their are laws preventing it) or even that the US would try in the first place.

A general mistrust over what the US might or might not do is not evidence that they will. The general attitude to the Assange case amongst some of us also worries me. You say "there is no evidence US wont". Really?

Like the point I tried to make - there is no evidence that I wouldn't be extradited. Just because politicians may hastily call for his head as we know US politicians do doesn't mean anything. America is a country of contradiction and it's judicial system is separate than the opinions of a few fringe politicians.

[Goldenmane]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

Argument from silence, GB, is no argument at all. Would you like some reading matter, or are you happier with your current opinion?

I'd like some reading matter.

[GenericBox]

If my argument is from silence, what would you call atheism? We have no evidence there is no god. Is that silence?

US and Sweden have both said they will not chase or allow an extradition. You are blinded by a mistrust and dislike of the US.

Argument from distrust, maybes and may nots, is also no argument at all.

[GenericBox]

From what I can read, McKinnon admitted to hacking into the US networks, and thereby admitting breaking serious US and International laws. The US publicly stated they wanted him, because as the wiki quotes (can't copy I'm on my iPhone) that since 911 the US is coming down hard on these sort of attacks.

McKinnon would be more compared to the soldier in the US who actually stole the docements provided to wiki leaks. Forget his name. It is a separate issue to Assange, where the US have said they are not interested in him nor is their definitive reason why they should even want him in the first place. Besides a general anger at what his company did.

I'll have to read the other one at home, but I fail to see the connection between the two so far.

[Goldenmane]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

Shall do, GM.

Maybe we might start with the UK's keenness to let the USA have people it wants, be they Brit-cits or others.

Gary McKinnon might be a good starting-point. Rather than give you slanted reports, I will merely point out the US wants him, and the UK are not doing a lot about it.

Richard O'Dwyer is even less likely to be branded "criminal" than McKinnon, but again, Uncle Sam wants him.

There's that funny thing about embassies and respecting the diplomatic status, but that can wait.

What else would you like to read about?

Well, I'm not sure what your position on this is. I don't really have one, since I don't feel that I'm informed enough to formulate an opinion.

However, I will note that as far as I know, the US seems to be at least as likely to be able to extradite Assange from the UK as from Sweden, should they want to. Lots of people seem to me to be caught up in the idea that the US would automatically try to do it in an underhanded, extraordinary rendition style of approach, but I can't really see how that would make even the slightest bit of sense.

Sweden has a policy, it appears, of refusing extradition if the person in question faces a possible death penalty - though it would be interesting to see if the US thought it oculd legally impose a death penalty for anything Assange has done.

Regarding the sexual assault: he hasn't been charged yet. Sweden's legal system operates such that charges can't be laid until someone has been arrested and procedures followed, IIRC. Currently, he's wanted on questioning, and frankly I think it's so fucking big in terms of international interest that the chances of anyone being able to railroad an unfair or inappropriate conviction are probably pretty miniscule. I mean, the whole fucking world is watching, in HD.

Anyway, time to go mto work.

[dilbadoon]

Originally Posted by GenericBox

I think it's insulting to Sweden to suggest that their legal system is somehow inferior to ours, or the British - or that they would "bow" to US extradition when there is no evidence they would (even to the contrary with Swedish lawyers adamant that their are laws preventing it) or even that the US would try in the first place.

A general mistrust over what the US might or might not do is not evidence that they will. The general attitude to the Assange case amongst some of us also worries me. You say "there is no evidence US wont". Really?

Like the point I tried to make - there is no evidence that I wouldn't be extradited. Just because politicians may hastily call for his head as we know US politicians do doesn't mean anything. America is a country of contradiction and it's judicial system is separate than the opinions of a few fringe politicians.

Wut?
If it is insulting to comment that another countries systems are inferior to our own, or others then I had better start writing my apology letters to Iran, Saudi Arabia, afghanistan, naughty Korea etc. The fact is the Swedish justice system is inferior to ours in some ways, not that I think they are relevant to this case. But as I said I have not found Geoffrey Robertson to be a paranoid liar before, so I think I'm going to just take his word over your opinion for now. At least until you can back it up.

[GenericBox]

Why prefer anyone's opinion, regardless of their track record.

[dilbadoon]

Originally Posted by GenericBox

Why prefer anyone's opinion, regardless of their track record.

Because this is not a black and white issue and all the facts are not available to us. At some point opinion will come into it, the fact that he bases his on years of experience in these areas and his previous record means I find him a reliable source. If someone shows me something concrete to the contrary I will happily re assess but so far what he has said has matched up with the several us pollies demanding he face trial there for treason.

[IVPITER]

I don't know what will likely happen if Julian Assange is extradited to Sweden but I don't think his fears of extradition from Sweden to USA are unreasonable either.

Originally Posted by 4corners

PER E. SAMUELSON: The minute he hits Swedish soil he will be arrested. He will be brought to a custody jail. He will be kept there in isolation for four days. He can only meet with me and my co-lawyer. On the fourth day he will be brought into a courtroom in handcuffs in front of a custody judge, and they will decide whether he will be kept in custody up until the final court case is tried, or if we if he will be released. I will try to get him released of course. But at least four days in Sweden in Swedish prison is... we can't avoid that.

Originally Posted by 4corners

JENNIFER ROBINSON: We are very concerned about the very prospect of potential extradition to the US. We need only look to the treatment of Bradley Manning. He's been held in pre-trial detention for more than two years now, in conditions for a large part of that detention which the UN Special Repertoire said amount to torture. We are very concerned about the prospect of him ending up in the US, and the risk of onward extradition from Sweden was always a concern and remains a concern.
ANDREW FOWLER: Once in Sweden he would be at the mercy of a system which has a record of complying with US wishes. And there's evidence that Sweden has acted illegally in past extraditions involving the US.
RICK FALKVINGE: Sweden has frankly always been the United States' lap dog and it's not a matter we are particularly proud of. The Swedish Government has... essentially, whenever a US official says, "Jump", the Sweden Government asks, "How high?"
ANDREW FOWLER: If that seems like a heavy handed comment, there's evidence to back it up.
RICK FALKVINGE: There was a famous case in last decade where a couple of Swedish citizens were even renditioned by the CIA in a quite torturous manner to Egypt where they were tortured further, which goes against every part of Swedish legislation, every international agreement on human rights - and not to say human dignity.
ANDREW FOWLER: A United Nations investigation later found against Sweden. The country was forced to pay compensation. For Assange, coupled with his other experiences of the Swedish judicial system, it is perhaps understandable that he fears ending up in Sweden.

Link below for video and transcript which I think is worth watching.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stori...htm#transcript